Problems with the idea of evil as "corrupt goodness"

[N0X3x]

I’ve read multiple theologians and writings by lay Catholics that portray evil as a spoiled or corrupt form of goodness. The theology that I’ve seen on the belief that our wills are set after death is related to this idea. The idea seems to make intuitive sense, but it seems to be diametrically opposed to the concept of free will and all the theology that goes along with it. if Evil can’t be pursued for its own sake, but rather is only the result of pursuing something good in the wrong way, then how can our wills be said to be free at all?

Does anyone know if this problem is resolvable?

 

[empther]

I’ve read multiple theologians and writings by lay Catholics that portray evil as a spoiled or corrupt form of goodness. The theology that I’ve seen on the belief that our wills are set after death is related to this idea.

I’m not sure what those theologians and others were talking about,
but let me take a stab at it.

All men desire the good for themselves. They cannot want anything but the good for themselves, unless they are mentally ill.

This desire for the good is itself a goodness.
The problem arises when our idea of what is good for us is not in step with what God thinks is good for us. Then our wills are disordered. They are not in order with what God knows is best for us. Our wills don’t want the right order of things.

The supreme example was Satan’s rebellion. He was so proud he desired that hell was better than submitting to God’s order of things. He knew this was foolish but he did it anyway.

 

[4love2God]

-]/-]NOX wonders: "multiple theologians and writings by lay Catholics portray evil as a spoiled or corrupt form of goodness."

First, Many theologians are not the most spiritual people you will meet.
Many choose to remove God from the equation, and speak of religion as a science.
And, since religion makes lousy science, some of the theories (ideas, … ) push into areas which don’t seem relavant to most of us Christians.

Second, Semantics (especially the poor use of it) makes almost any theory available.
Semantics is the study of word meaning.
If I want to make a point, I can define the terms the way I want (or, leave everything un-defined).
So, if every non-Catholic is called evil … then this defines every Catholic as not evil.

OK, what is the nature of Evil?

Semantically, Evil will be defined as never being Good, as Bad, as always negative.
Goodness can be defined as always being Good, as always positive.

This, or any similar definition of Evil and Goodness, should show these 2 terms as completely opposite.
If that is so, then on one end of the continuum is Goodness, and at the other end of the continuum is Evil.
There are VERY few instances of pure Evil.
Likewise, there are few instances of consisting of pure Goodness (especially over time).

So, one way to define less-than-Perfect Goodness, is to call it corrupted.
This might mean that 5% of that person is less-than-Goodness, and 95% is pure Goodness.
Or, in the example you cited, that might be 90% less-than-Goodness, and 10% pure Goodness.
At any rate, people are not built to live in pure ecstasy, or pure peace, or, pure Goodness.
Therefore, we are corrupted (if you will), or spoiled (if you will), or imperfect Human Beings.

 

[fhansen]

I’ve read multiple theologians and writings by lay Catholics that portray evil as a spoiled or corrupt form of goodness. The theology that I’ve seen on the belief that our wills are set after death is related to this idea. The idea seems to make intuitive sense, but it seems to be diametrically opposed to the concept of free will and all the theology that goes along with it. if Evil can’t be pursued for its own sake, but rather is only the result of pursuing something good in the wrong way, then how can our wills be said to be free at all?

Does anyone know if this problem is resolvable?

Everything in creation is good-because God didn’t make it otherwise. So evil can only come, in some manner, from good, being a lessening or twisting or corrupting of it. As Augustine said, in fact, “The only possible source of evil, is good”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’ve read multiple theologians and writings by lay Catholics that portray evil as a spoiled or corrupt form of goodness. The theology that I’ve seen on the belief that our wills are set after death is related to this idea. The idea seems to make intuitive sense, but it seems to be diametrically opposed to the concept of free will and all the theology that goes along with it. if Evil can’t be pursued for its own sake, but rather is only the result of pursuing something good in the wrong way, then how can our wills be said to be free at all?

Does anyone know if this problem is resolvable?

This is correct, it is standard Scholastic (Aquinas) theology and pretty much what priests are taught for the last 500 years.

Evil does not exist in itself. Evil is a privation, yes a sort of good thing slightly (or less than slightly) imperfect. Obviously we are talking about objective good as discernible by reason.

When we make bad objective choices we are in fact, from our point of view, seeking a good. The evil lies in the fact we are fooled/blinded (whether intentionally or accidentally) in some way. Hence all evil choices are in some way against reason also.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’ve read multiple theologians and writings by lay Catholics that portray evil as a spoiled or corrupt form of goodness. The theology that I’ve seen on the belief that our wills are set after death is related to this idea. The idea seems to make intuitive sense, but it seems to be diametrically opposed to the concept of free will and all the theology that goes along with it. if Evil can’t be pursued for its own sake, but rather is only the result of pursuing something good in the wrong way, then how can our wills be said to be free at all?

Does anyone know if this problem is resolvable?

If we use the issue of abortion as a working example, you can bet the people who advocate abortion think they are doing something “good”. You know, it’s for the “good” of the woman, the “good” of society, only those children who are wanted will be born, the family will be able to afford to live and not waste more irreplaceable assets, etc.

The plain fact of the matter is that they’re committing murder, and it will be judged as such.

They call an evil “good” and believe it.

But they still have free will in that choice. So they’re responsible for their actions. I didn’t force them to do it - you didn’t force them to do it - God didn’t force them to do it. So they are responsible. I suppose Christ would say of them the very same thing He said of the Pharisees - “Forgive them Father, they don’t know what they’re doing!” As a consequence they can still be redeemed.

Even Hitler and the Nazis thought they were doing “good” - it was for the “good” of Germany; the human race would be strengthened as the strong would survive and the weak annihilated. They called a gross evil “good” and believed it.

That’s the sort of justification that humans use to endorse evil. We have to justify ourselves.

As for the fallen spiritual world, the orbit of the demons, they also were created “good”. But their fall was final, and irredeemable. I don’t know about individual demons, but in the case of Satan himself, Christ said he was a “liar from the beginning”.

So something went drastically wrong there, right from the very beginning.

Yet it would have been his own decision. And from the bit that I’ve seen of demonic “faces”, one thing seems to come through even more strongly than an appearance of evil - sheer hatred.

The devil himself would therefore hate absolutely. So we’re talking about a different paradigm when we talk about “evil” in the spiritual world. It is far more potent. I don’t know whether they even care about justifying themselves. I don’t think they do.

But they still had free will in their original choice.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

… Yet it would have been his own decision. And from the bit that I’ve seen of demonic “faces”, one thing seems to come through even more strongly than an appearance of evil - sheer hatred.…

I’ve quoted a bit of my own post above as I wanted to elaborate on the business of “hatred” being visible in demonic faces.

In the book “Interview with an Exorcist” by Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea, paragraph 21 reads as follows -

21. What is the greatest evil?

According to the Catechism of the CAtholic Church, the greatest evil is sin (CCC 1488). Since God is love and sin leads to the rejection of His love, sin inevitably leads to hatred - of God, of humanity, of those around us, and of ourselves. Those who allow themselves to walk the path of hatred can reach the point where they hate all four objects with all their entire strength. Such a consuming hate is the final stage of total moral degradation.

Demons have reached that stage. If you ever see a demonic appearance, there will be two things that come through in particular - one is evil, but the other is sheer hatred.

But it was their own continued choice that led that them that point.

 

[N0X3x]

All men desire the good for themselves. They cannot want anything but the good for themselves, unless they are mentally ill.

This desire for the good is itself a goodness.
The problem arises when our idea of what is good for us is not in step with what God thinks is good for us. Then our wills are disordered. They are not in order with what God knows is best for us. Our wills don’t want the right order of things.

I think I should define what I mean by “goodness.” I think goodness might be defined as “that which is worthy of desire.” Since God is the source of all goodness, any time we think something evil is good, we are making some form of an intellectual error, aren’t we? And why would we be culpable for intellectual errors?

 

[N0X3x]

Everything in creation is good-because God didn’t make it otherwise. So evil can only come, in some manner, from good, being a lessening or twisting or corrupting of it. As Augustine said, in fact, “The only possible source of evil, is good”.

I recognise that evil can’t exist at all without goodness, whereas the opposite is not true. What I’m wondering on this thread is whether evil can be pursued for its own sake.

 

[N0X3x]

.

When we make bad objective choices we are in fact, from our point of view, seeking a good. The evil lies in the fact we are fooled/blinded (whether intentionally or accidentally) in some way. Hence all evil choices are in some way against reason also.

That would imply that sin is an intellectual error rather than an error in the will. Do you think we are morally culpable for intellectual errors?

 

[fhansen]

I recognise that evil can’t exist at all without goodness, whereas the opposite is not true. What I’m wondering on this thread is whether evil can be pursued for its own sake.

We’re free to do whatever we want with the materials at hand and the circumstances we find ourselves in. We’re always oriented towards obtaining good for ourselves because why would we want anything less?-presumably both Lucifer and Adam at least thought they were bettering their lots by their rebellion.

And I suppose that if we were to believe that the absolute negation of goodness, perhaps doing maximum harm to neighbor, or choosing hell rather than heaven (the first and greatest evil being separation from God) would bring us a greater happiness than refraining from committing such harm, then that would be the “good” we’d pursue.

 

[N0X3x]

We’re free to do whatever we want with the materials at hand and the circumstances we find ourselves in. We’re always oriented towards obtaining good for ourselves because why would we want anything less?-presumably both Lucifer and Adam at least thought they were bettering their lots by their rebellion.

And I suppose that if we were to believe that the absolute negation of goodness, perhaps doing maximum harm to neighbor, or choosing hell rather than heaven (the first and greatest evil being separation from God) would bring us a greater happiness than refraining from committing such harm, then that would be the “good” we’d pursue.

Again, that is a failure of the intellect, not of the will. I don’t see how God could hold someone responsible for an intellectual mistake. Under this model, Adam and Satan weren’t actively rebelling against God, they were simply mistaken as to what the good actually was.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That would imply that sin is an intellectual error rather than an error in the will. Do you think we are morally culpable for intellectual errors?

Did you know that theologians call the Will the “Intellective Appetite”?
They are intimately connected in any free act.

 

[N0X3x]

Did you know that theologians call the Will the “Intellective Appetite”?
They are intimately connected in any free act.

Consider the following scenario.

a four year old child steals a candy bar from a store, but does not understand the harm he has done to the owner. Is he morally responsible for theft?

Suppose that the four year old would understand the harm to the owner and would not steal the candy bar if he gave it some thought, but concern for the store owner simply never crosses his mind.

It seems to me that there is a dilemma here. Either we must hold that the boy is not responsible for theft, and that we are not responsible for flaws in our intellect, or else we must hold that the boy is responsible for theft because we are somehow responsible for flaws in our intellect. According to the “corrupted goodness” model, everyone in hell, including the demons, are there ultimately because of a much more complex version of the second possiblity. I fail to see how a loving and just God could allow this.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Again, that is a failure of the intellect, not of the will. I don’t see how God could hold someone responsible for an intellectual mistake. Under this model, Adam and Satan weren’t actively rebelling against God, they were simply mistaken as to what the good actually was.

Yes some hold this position, I believe Socrates was its greatest exponent.
My former parish priest also used to go on like this…if we are patient with sinners and explain the true consequences of their decisions they will automatically change.
What a crock…!

But what you are missing is that the question is one of evil not necessarily moral culpability.

I said “Hence all evil choices are in some way against reason also.”
I didn’t say all evil choices are culpable.
But they are always against reason and therefore have evil consequences even if we don’t realise this. To the degree we do realise (or refuse to investigate), and still do them, we are culpable.

 

[ericc]

Again, that is a failure of the intellect, not of the will. I don’t see how God could hold someone responsible for an intellectual mistake. Under this model, Adam and Satan weren’t actively rebelling against God, they were simply mistaken as to what the good actually was.

You probably need to elaborate the intellectual failure vs will bit. How do you differentiate between the 2? Any one can reason things out wrongly, but they don’t have to act on it. I thought of doing something selfish, but I didn’t do it. I have the free will , I thought about it, but I didn’t do it. Satan may have intellectual failure but he didn’t have to do it i.e. rebel but he did it and with 1/3 of the angels against God. To you that is intellectual failure and not something done out of Satan’s freewill? Please do explain.

You might have a case if intellectually the person is incapable of distinguishing what he is doing is wrong such as a mentally retarded person or with some sort of a medical condition. Satan is definitely not a semi-intelligent being. Of Adam, I am not sure what level of intellectual competence he was, so I can’t say. Regardless of the details, God will know the details of your heart/brain. A just God will judge accordingly. This is something I take comfort in. Also on laziness on my part to figure out whether a person is mentally sound when he does something wrong.

 

[ynotzap]

Evil is regarded to be the absence of good. the intellect has the truth for its object of appetency the will has the good for its object of appetency. What ever the intellect sees as good the will strives to possess it. God is truth, and the will desires to possess the good which is God , God is the ultimate truth and good. Created things are good too, all thatGod creates is good, There is a moral principal for determining right which is good, and wrong which is bad. Only intellectual creatures can commit evil, or good in their moral choices God is the greatest good, created things are lesser goods

The principal is " What ever is objectively conducive to the well-being of a person is good, and therefore right. Whatever is objectively not conducive to the well-being of a person is bad, therefore wrong. When a person sins, depending on the seriousness of the sin he must know that he is going against the greatest good who is God, therefore he chooses wrong because objectively he is going against his well-being. He has put himself and something in creation ahead of his greatest good, he has choosen a lesser good, a created good. It depends on what he knows at the time of his choice. If he had full knowledge, full consent, and a serious matter, he sins mortally, very serious. If he makes a wrong choice because of ignorance he doesn’t sin, but he may be culpable for ignorance.

 

[fhansen]

Again, that is a failure of the intellect, not of the will. I don’t see how God could hold someone responsible for an intellectual mistake. Under this model, Adam and Satan weren’t actively rebelling against God, they were simply mistaken as to what the good actually was.

Yes, I believe ignorance is involved in any sin, including the original sin of choosing a lesser good over the Ultimate Good. As finite beings our knowledge and culpability are relative, not absolute; we know by degrees, we’re culpable by degrees, so that the more we know, the greater our accountability. But due to free will man sort of becomes the Determiner and Guardian of All Truth in his own world; he can prefer things to be the way he wants them to be and act accordingly; he acts as his own God IOW. God, OTOH, wants us to become aligned with His will, with reality, with THE truth.

As a farmer I’ve experienced laying perfect plans that nature nevertheless found a way to thwart, as a truck owner/dispatcher I’ve found that human nature can cause similar frustrations when drivers or traffic or whatever manage to mess up my perfectly executed scheduling. For humans to succeed in aviation, strict adherence to, obedience to, compliance with laws of physics as they pertain to aeronautics was the order of the day if disaster was to be forestalled; some had to learn physics the hard way. IOW we don’t make the rules, no matter how badly we may want our own plans to work; rather we become conformed to the rules by learning why they’re the rules, why the rules are good.

And God’s patient in this educative endeavor, drawing us into compliance rather than either annihilating His creation or forcing it into alignment; that’s what this world is all about. We’re accountable but it’s a rather fine line: He holds us responsible while giving us the grace to fulfill our responsibility, if we will, since grace is always resistible. Our culpability will hinge on our circumstances: knowledge, background, “counterfactuals”, as they say-who could know all the details of the criteria each of us individually is judged by, except God? In any case we’re judged according what we do with what we’re given.

 

[ynotzap]

Satan’s choice was not due to ignorance. He is called “Lucifer” the bearer of Truth.(light) Angels are infused with truth by the Holy Spirit He chose himself over God, his will over God’s will. Pride was his downfall, a failure to give obedience to God, he became “the father of lies, a murderer,” opposed to all truth, therefore apposed to all good. It was not an act of intelligence, but an act of the will. He sinned mortally With us yes we are ignorant in degrees, the more we know, the greater our moral responsibilities. And we can always say we don’t have the complete truth, but we are morally responsible for what we do know. Thats a good thing because we are lacking in complete knowledge. Whew!!!Thank God!

 

[ynotzap]

By the way angels don’t rationalize as we do, they are infused by God with knowledge, there angelic faculty seems or is focus on their will, and once they choose, they can not change, their will is immutable ( I think this is what St. Thomas taught)